Welcome to Texas justice: You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride.

Thursday, March 05, 2009

Dutton: Require written or recorded consent for traffic stop searches

On Monday, the Texas House Public Safety Committee will hear a particularly star-crossed piece of legislation by Houston state Rep. Harold Dutton, HB 917, which would require written or recorded consent for police to search personal vehicles at a traffic stops without probable cause.

This is an identical version of a bill that passed 29-2 in the Texas Senate and 96-41 in the House back in 2005 but was inexplicably vetoed by Governor Rick Perry. Since then we've seen numerous situations, most recently in East Texas, where police have abused their search authority.

I've written so much about this same legislation in the past, for now let me simply endorse the bill enthusiastically and link to past, related Grits coverage if you'd like more detail on the subject:

It wasn't "inexplicably" vetoed. The Gov put out exactly why he vetoed it in his veto proclamation. Inexplicably is defined as impossible to explain. It is clearly explained - he believes that there were already sufficient Constitutional protections and that the bill placed to high a burden on law enforcement.

Based on the Committee Hearing witness list, it is clear why the Gov vetoed it. The ACLU (Harrell & Grits), the NRA and one individual registered in favor of the bill.

There are thugs driving around with their windows so dark you can't see inside the car, yet DPS will pull over a senior citizen, rather than confront the real problems. Why do they do the opposite of what is expected?

Governor Perry has vetoed MANY bills related to civil rights. One that comes to mind, is the bill introduced by Rep. Jessica Farrar in 2001. This bill had UNANIMOUS support from the House, and passed through the Senate side, as well, with wide support. Governor Perry vetoed this bill! It would have allowed for the expunction of arrest records/files for people who had a criminal charge dismissed, and with NO conviction found by the courts. These 'collateral consequences' of having a deferred adjudication 'pleabargain'-are the huge source of employment and housing discrimination. Also, people have been flat out denied the ability to obtain many occupational licenses, simply due to the availability of the arrest record(which is found in any background check)-even though they were not convicted of any crime! So, I am not surprised he did not support Rep. Dutton's bill-as it would go against common sense.

With so many citizens having been kept ignorant of their right to refuse an unwarranted search of their persons and property - a result of modern public education failing to appraise students of their rights as citizens - such legislation would serve to place on notice those who abuse their authority that they would face punishment for doing so.

A pity things have to be so adversarial, but this is what the War on Drugs has brought us.

Wow Bluesy, you mean that every single law enforcement agency was opposed to filming, and you don't see a problem with that? What are they trying to hide?

Perry believes that Texas was in the right to argue that a defendant who is actually innocent can be executed as long as he's had a trial. So he knows little about the constitution, or its protections.

Why would I have a problem with the LE agencies and unions opposing the bill?

That is much easier to swallow than the ACLU supporting it. Or don't you remember that for years, the ACLU supported the restriction of your Second Amendment rights? I mean this is the organization that has stated on it's website that: "The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. "

In other words, the national ACLU is fine with disregarding your right to keep and bear arms, but you want me to trust them over the police?

I don't think so...

And as long as the Gov has good, honest, law enforcement supporters of good character advising him, like TMPA, CLEAT and the like, I won't worry about him either...

Do you have something to hide? Is that why you are anti-law enforcement?

Similarly, there are dozens of Texas agencies that adopted written consent of their own accord. And the prosecutors' manual on traffic stops even endorses the idea to eliminate swearing matches. Are they all anti-law enforcement?

How would this bill, if passed and becomes Texas law, conflict with rulings already made by the US Supreme Court?

Can the state create a law that supercedes what the Supreme Court has already ruled on?

In contrast to Miranda rights, officers conducting a consent search are not required to warn people of their right to withhold consent in order for consent to be valid, as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte. Nor are they required to conduct a search in a way that gives the individual an opportunity to revoke consent, as determined in United States v. Dominguez, where the court rejected the argument that “officials must conduct all searches in plain view of the suspect, and in a manner slowly enough that he may withdraw or delimit his consent at any time during the search.

I am well aware that you support gun rights. That is why I made sure and identified it as the national, not the local branch. I also know that you support the death penalty (abet with provisos).

The anonymous poster I was responding to saw a problem with all of the law enforcement agencies and unions agreeing that it was a bad bill, and immediately thought that they had something to hide.

Of course, any agency can set their own policies on how to conduct their business, but that doesn't mean that all should.

Finally, your own post about setting higher standards covers it. The Gov, the police agencies, the police unions, and I don't believe that we need higher standards, we believe that the standards in the U.S. Constitution are perfectly fine.

Unless, of course, you also want to raise the protection afforded our fine, upstanding officers, to give them better job protection against unsubstantiated and uncalled for complaints... I would support you on that.... ;)

Similarly, there are dozens of Texas agencies that adopted written consent of their own accord. And the prosecutors' manual on traffic stops even endorses the idea to eliminate swearing matches. Are they all anti-law enforcement?

Busted Bluesy.

Don't bring a knife to a gunfight son.

(I'm sure your cop booty buddies would tell you the same thing.)

Your "what are you hiding" argument is the purest form of absurd. In a post saying that cops shouldn't be forced to film consents to search, you ask me what I'm hiding?

Yup, Bluesy, I've little doubt you're just like Perry Mason in the old TV show where every client, in your case police officers, turned out to be innocent, falsely accused, and pure as the driven snow. ;)

It makes me uneasy to think law enforcement has so much power to influence legislation and outline what they will or will not do as far as what is required of them in carrying out the duties of their job.

GfB Writer Bios

Subscribe by email

Support Grits via Donation

Donate to Grits via PayPal. Grits is a hobby, but donations help cover newspaper subscriptions, periodic travel, open records fees, etc.. Donate if you can! When I have resources, the blog can do more stuff!

"I always tell people interested in these issues that your blog is the most important news source, and have had high-ranking corrections officials tell me they read it regularly."

- Scott Medlock, Texas Civil Rights Project

"a helluva blog"

- Solomon Moore, NY Times criminal justice correspondent

"Congrats on building one of the most read and important blogs on a specific policy area that I've ever seen"

- Donald Lee, Texas Conference of Urban Counties

GFB "is a fact-packed, trustworthy reporter of the weirdness that makes up corrections and criminal law in the Lone Star State" and has "shown more naked emperors than Hans Christian Andersen ever did."

-Attorney Bob Mabry, Conroe

"Grits really shows the potential of a single-state focused criminal law blog"

- Corey Yung, Sex Crimes Blog

"I regard Grits for Breakfast as one of the most welcome and helpful vehicles we elected officials have for understanding the problems and their solutions."

Tommy Adkisson,Bexar County Commissioner

"dude really has a pragmatic approach to crime fighting, almost like he’s some kind of statistics superhero"

- Rob Patterson, The Austin Post"Scott Henson's 'Grits for Breakfast' is one of the most insightful blogs on criminal justice issues in Texas."

- Texas Public Policy Foundation

"Nobody does it better or works harder getting it right"

David Jennings, aka "Big Jolly"

"I appreciate the fact that you obviously try to see both sides of an issue, regardless of which side you end up supporting."

Kim Vickers,Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and EducationGrits for Breakfast "has probably broken more criminal justice stories than any TX reporter, but stays under the radar. Fascinating guy."

Maurice Chammah,The Marshall Project"unrestrained and uneducated"

John Bradley,Former Williamson County District Attorney, now former Attorney General of Palau

"our favorite blog"

- Texas District and County Attorneys Association Twitter feed"Scott Henson ... writes his terrific blog Grits for Breakfast from an outhouse in Texas."